Magistrate’s powers of sentencing are limited, they could only offer six months for one offence and twelve months for two separate offences; but now they can offer “a total of twelve months imprisonment for one or more offences”, if changes take place. The powers would enable the magistrates to prosecute someone for twelve months for one offence and fifteen “for two or more under the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. Magistrates can also fine prosecutors up to a sum of five-thousand pounds, though for some offences i.e. pollution can excel to a hefty fine of twenty-thousand pounds. The Magistrates deals with preliminary matters such as, bail application and legal aid.
District Judges are trained Barristers and solicitors and are qualified they can sit them self in cases or, also participate with lay Magistrates
In my own observations as a class we visited the Magistrates Court in Nottingham, we witnessed a young women being prosecuted for the offences of theft and also prostitution. Her representative was a really good Solicitor, he was offering the judge due to her background and a positive record that her sentence to be cut and so she could be given a small fine instead using alternatives to avoid going prison.
Litigation can also lead someone in need of professional help, if a defendant goes to any court, they may take someone with them to represent them, people often take solicitors, as they are a very useful weapon to poses and fight for you, although they are very expensive you might be able to qualify legal aid depending on your circumstances. Solicitors can deal with any criminal matter in Magistrates and even Crown Court.
Training and qualifications are synchronised by The Solicitors Regulation Authority. Solicitors must first possess a qualifying law degree, or have completed a conversion course. Then prospective solicitors must enrol with the Law Society as a student member and take a one-year course called the Legal Practice Course and then usually undertake two years' apprenticeship, known as a training contract.
The other branches of the English legal profession, a barrister, normally are “specialists in advocacy, presenting cases in court under instruction from a solicitor”. “Barristers can specialise in different areas of law including criminal law, common law including family, housing and personal injury law, chancery law and commercial law. Most barristers work on a self-employed basis, from chambers. An increasing number of employed barristers work in private and public organisations; but would not deal with the public directly. This is no longer the case, as solicitor advocates may act at certain higher levels of court which were previously barred to them.
Barristers typically undertake activities which consist of “understanding and interpreting the law, mastering and managing legal briefs (cases), writing opinions and advising solicitors and other professionals, preparing cases for court, including holding client conferences, preparing legal argument, presenting arguments in court, negotiating settlements”, also telling their client what to say in court etc. Majority of Barristers are trained in a specific field which allocates them to work extremely good because they specialise in a small sector. For example this can be conducted by, “the work of a criminal barrister is likely to involve a lot of advocacy in court, a family law barrister may be representing clients in court in a contact dispute or divorce case, but equally may be involved in mediation as a way of avoiding the need to go to court and a barrister practising chancery law will act in 'traditional' chancery cases related to wills, probate and trusts but may also be heavily involved in providing advice and negotiating on corporate and commercial matters etc. Some barristers can continue their journey and becomes a judge and may also become involved with the development of legal policy and strategy
This however didn’t affect the courts mental thinking process, the court heard that as she pleaded guilty her sentence would be reduced, however if she pleaded not guilty she would of got nine months, but she only received hundred and eighty one days in prison. As the defendant had already gone prison she had a probation officer opinion given in court, stating that she has been well behaved when she was in prison so this it would go in her favour and may relate to her sentence being slightly reduced, in this particular case their was a panel of three lay justices.
A probation officers job role is to work to rehabilitate offenders by, “enforcing the conditions of court orders and release licences, conducting offender risk assessments in order to protect the public and also ensuring offenders' awareness of the impact of their crime on their victims and the public”. Their duties are multiple of advising courts on how they feel, working with offenders during and after sentencing etc. They try to give a platform for the defendants to stand upon as a helping hand.
Police now have to be more careful due to the introduction of the Pace Act 1984, this means that they, can not stop search randomly, has therefore be a suspicion or a legitimate reasonable grounds, that the suspect may be guilty of something. This however is an advantage as it protects people’s human rights under the 1998 Act. However the police are making an inquest to stop and search anyone they believe may be a threat or may perceive to them that they may be suspicious, I don’t think this should be allowed due to them breeching peoples human rights, when ever you go to town just imagine how many times you get filmed in and out of places, we need our privacy in some respect.
Due to protecting human rights, “use of jury in the Crown Court is regarded as an important constitutional right”. “In the past few years Tony Blair’s Labour Government has made three attempts to restrict the rights of defendants to trial by jury. “In 1999 and 2000, the Government tried to get a bill passed which would have removed from offenders charged with triable either-way offences the right to choose jury trial” which would be wrong as under the Crown Prosection Serice they should be able to have a free trial under human rights Act 1998; which is obviously breaching their options. “On both occasions the House of Lords voted against the bill so that it could not be made. “In 2003 the Criminal Justice bill included two clauses which would have affected the defendant’s right to trial by jury. “ The first gave the defendant the right to choose to be tried by a judge alone without a jury”, but this clause however got defeated by the House of Lords. “The second clause provided for the prosecution to apply for trial by a judge alone in complex fraud cases. Obviously the House of Lords voted against this decision, but due to compromising a decision was reached, so that the section was passed” so that it could then “be part of the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. There is also a twist this can not become a permanent law but for mutually the House of Commons and the House of Lords vote in favour of this in the future
However the defendant was lucky because this case could have altered and gone to the Crown Court if she pleaded not guilty; as it would mean the sentence would be sever for the Magistrates to give. The Crown Court can hear are all indictable offences these are, very serious and can only be heard at the Crown Court not Magistrates. Any triable either-way offences where the Magistrates reached a decision and cancelled jurisdiction can therefore be passed on to the Crown Court or if the defendant has chosen to trial there under the human rights 1998.
Juries are elected through when you vote it is opposite to the magistrates has you have to that job voluntarily, there is a one in six chance you would be elected to take the duty of a jury these people are also members of the public, if you cannot perform you would likely get a one thousand pound fine and also a criminal record.
If the defendant on trial chooses to plead not guilty then the case then would be heard by a judge and a jury of twelve ordinary people elected. The judge would then decide the fate of the case, and will indicate to the jury if they have reached a decision, by then the jury will take every thing to account and will consider all the key elements and decide the facts; accordingly, whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If the defendant is found guilty, it is then the role of the judge to pass sentence.
As the case continues, at the end the judge would then help the jury on any appropriate points of the law, and all of the juries will then decide whether the genuinely believe if the defendant is guilty or not. If the decision goes in favour of the defendant as not guilty the person on trial is found not guilty the judge would then decide the appropriate sentence to give on the defendant. If the defendant then say they are guilty the judge would then deal with the particular case by themselves with no jury..
To conclude improving the importance of multi agency involvement could be a factor because it would reduce defendants going to court again so when they do rehabilitate they wouldn’t need to go in again if there is a good service available to them, so they could work with someone on a one to one basis which could include social workers, probation officers, or other services so they could lead on to the right path and get a decent job with an average salary. If I had more word space I would then go on and continue how to reform and improve these particular services.
Word Limit 2,086
References:
Internet:
Books:
Blackstone’s book published by: Chris
